Wednesday, September 27, 2017

U.S. Air Force officials are reportedly reviewing inspector general complaints against Reserve Christian Chaplain Sonny Hernandez based on a column that BarbWire published on Sep. 12. Meanwhile, there is no indication the Department of Defense is investigating U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (also an Air Force reservist) or Bradley Manning (an active duty soldier) despite some highly questionable behavior by both.

Dr. Sonny Hernandez wrote, “Christian Service Members: Avoid Supporting or Accommodating Evil!” on his own time and in a civilian capacity. Here is some of what he wrote.

Third, the First Amendment of the US Constitution states that the free-exercise of religion is for all Americans to practice their faith, but does that mean a Christian service member should accommodate or support things that are contrary to their faith? Absolutely not! . . .

All service members have taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution. Taking an oath to defend the Constitution, does not require a service member to compromise their own sincerely held beliefs in the process, nor does it force a service member to accept a worldview that is antithetical to their own. According to the First Amendment, there is freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Therefore, Christians in the Armed Forces should feel free to espouse and practice their convictions, and even deny participating, or accommodating a religion or practice that would cause them to sin—regardless if it offends others or not.

So he rightly says the Constitution permits all Americans to practice their faith. He also rightly says Christians should not violate their faith.

Meanwhile, the Trump DOD is apparently ignoring the activities of Ted Lieu and Bradley Manning.

Ted Lieu is an anti-Trump Democratic U.S. congressman representing California’s 33rd district. He also is a currently serving airman in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. On May 16 he tweeted, “Now more than ever we need whistleblowers to come forward. I created an official website on how to leak to the press”. . . .

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Google fired James Damore on Monday because of an initially internal writing he authored regarding company culture. And while people’s outrage over the termination is understandable, that outrage won’t achieve anything on its own. So action must follow it. And a solid course of action would be for other employers to start firing people who have progressive beliefs.

In case you aren’t aware of what happened, Breitbart provides a summary of what Damore wrote and Google’s stated reason for firing him. Progressives have cheered the firing and want more terminations of anyone who might disagree with them. Meanwhile, others have defended him and are talking about how it is becoming increasingly difficult to say anything that doesn’t adhere to progressive doctrine without risking your career.

Progressives are wrong and those who are complaining are correct. But we are far past the stage where complaining serves much purpose. Therefore, it is time for action—action that puts progressives on the defensive. And my proposal is quite simple: employers should start firing employees who say anything supportive of progressives or their positions. . . .

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Media went nuts over the words “cosmopolitan” and “fisk” last week. That hysteria was perfectly in line with the rest of the general dementedness now gushing forth from them and their comrades on a daily basis. And this dementedness continues revealing just how dangerous the Ruling Class is.

After a television personality started delivering a nonsensical sermon on immigration law to Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Policy Stephen Miller, Miller responded in part by mentioning that personality’s “cosmopolitan attitude.” And being unable to let a moment go by without creating some sort of phony “controversy,” media seized on that response and began churning out the notion that the word “cosmopolitan” is some sort of racist dog whistle.

A short time later the media generated another controversy by shrieking when radio hostess Dana Loesch used the word “fisk” in a video.

Such is the state of the media. And such is the state of the Ruling Class since they are one and the same. . . .

Monday, July 24, 2017

Media love to publish stories about U.S. special operations forces. Such stories garner attention and make it appear as if they are disclosing something that until now had been secret. But as with everything else coming from the press, all is often not as it seems. And a June 30 article from The Drive provides an example of how a media outlet turned common intelligence collection into an “Inside SPECOPS” type of story.

The Drive draws the reader to its article with the bold title and subtitle of, “Identity Intel Ops” Turn US Special Operators Into Combat Detectives – Personal data, fingerprints, DNA, and more all help lead elite forces to their next target.” If the “Special Operators” didn’t work in attracting attention, the addition of “Combat Detectives” and “elite forces” probably did.

People who read the story are likely to be enthralled with the lengthy article, which cites a U.S. Special Operations Command document (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act), mentions the Joint Special Operations Command, references military operations (including the one that killed Osama bin Laden), uses lots of military jargon, has extensive links to other sources, and includes paragraphs like the following that appear to be revealing previously secret information.

The actual tasks sound a lot like something straight from an episode of a procedural crime drama on television. The document outlines six specific types of identity intelligence elite forces should be looking to gather at all times: biometric live scans, latent prints, DNA, facial images, trace materials, and documents and media. This information can be taken from individuals and sites that U.S. special operators in the course of “sensitive site exploitations” during operations, as well as from any potential person of interest, local employee, or foreign national who comes onto a facility run by elite forces at home or abroad. . . .

Still, the official descriptions make it clear that, if the circumstances at all allow it, elite troops are supposed to be collecting a significant amount of data. The biometric live scan, intended to be collected from living person as its name implies, sounds particularly comprehensive. The full profile includes full, rolled prints of all of the subject’s 10 fingers, scans of both of their irises, and a frontal view photograph. If “time and bandwidth are constrained” – all of this data is subsequently uploaded digitally to a central point for analysis – special operators may only take quick, flat prints and a photograph instead.

Sounds like it’s exciting and groundbreaking news, doesn’t it? But it is not.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Major media organizations continue accusing Donald Trump of engaging in treason with Russia. The baseless charges serve as a reminder that media have conducted harmful influence operations against the U.S. for decades. Consequently, Americans should treat these media entities as hostile intelligence organizations.

James Comey worked with the media to start the current investigation into Trump regarding the conspiracy theories surrounding him and Russia. Comey did this by providing classified memos to the media through a friend. The investigation, of course, is designed to end with Trump being removed from office.

All of this is strikingly similar to how a state intelligence organization might operate if it wanted to change the leadership of the United States.

And this is not something unusual for the media.

Nearly every day the media seem to launch new accusations against Trump based on illegal leaks from government officials. The illegal leaks are so bad (in both the amount and severity of the information they disclose) that in early July the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs released a report titled, “State Secrets: How an Avalanche of Media Leaks Is Harming National Security.” An excerpt from its executive summary emphasizes the damage the media are doing to the U.S. . . .

One of the conclusions elements of the U.S. intelligence community made regarding Russian interference in U.S. elections was that Russia promoted the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Democratic Party and major media organizations support OWS. But to date, there have been no negative consequences for the Democrats or media.

SCI noted in January that the intelligence assessment the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released revealed that Russia promoted OWS during the 2012 presidential election cycle. The Democratic Party and major media organizations openly sided with OWS throughout the campaign (and beyond). And that wasn’t a minor thing.

Media and Democratic support for OWS was widespread during the prime years of OWS in 2011 and 2012. That support remains strong (even if less noticeable) to this day. Indeed, the entire Ruling Class backed OWS during its heyday, with even the U.S. government offering tacit approval.

In 2011, I wrote a brief post at Breitbart that documented how the Department of Defense was allowing its troops to promote OWS. In that same post, I noted how U.S. government propaganda outlets RFE/RL and VOA were publishing positive news items for the group as well.

And when Election Day arrived in November of 2012, Barack Obama won another term in office.

Yet no one in power has ever challenged the validity of Obama’s victory. And no one in power has called for long, widespread investigations that would search to find out if the Democrats and media colluded with Russia on behalf of Obama. In fact, no one in power has ever expressed much, if any, interest at all about how the Democrats and media supported OWS at the same time that Russia promoted the group.

The ODNI revelation that Russia promoted OWS is extremely troubling. It is a serious national security concern. Yet no one in power has expressed any unease about it much less called for a thorough investigation into it to find out if the Democrats and media colluded with Russia to help Obama win in 2012.